Seattle Criminal Attorney | Drug Possession | ER 404(b)
Here we go again, a new run down of the criminal jurisprudence cases determined in the preceding week in Washington State. As with preceding week, the amount of decisions out is mimimal – maybe it has a bit to do with the holidays or something, so this post might not be that long (although I doubt it). And keep in mind, as always, that although I am a Seattle criminal attorney, I would not advise you take my summary of these cases and my breakdown of these cases as gospel as you march into court to talk to the judge. If you truly require the benefit of one of these cases to facilitate you, do the intelligent thing and look at the situation. That way you can be rest secure that what you are uttering is accurate – or better yet, call up a criminal lawyer to aid – you’ll be glad you did.
The initial drunk driving case on our docket is State v. Hartzell, a case focused on the rules of verification, namely 404(b). Here we go.
State v. Hartzell is a case about armed assault and unlawful possession of a handgun. It is the category of state of affairs a driving under the influence defense attorney enjoys because the evidence was slight. It is not the type of situation Seattle criminal attorneys love since the prosecutor employed some fresh theories of utilizing the rules of verification that appeared to be odd upon first review. Let’s see what the court has to say.
Facts – The victim was awakened in his dwelling by gunshots. He gazed outside and spotted someone firing out of a red van. The automobile was moving as the firing was going on so the victim assumed there was more than one individual. A independent victim heard the equivalent thing, and later discovered bullet holes in her bed. Fragments were pulled from the bed. later on the police searched the dwelling of Hartzell’s pal, who admitted to shooting a firearm at a different time. According to ballistics, the revolver was that used during the shooting described above.
The police were then later on called to a reported offense where Hartzell was. The cops showed up, saw a bullet hole in a automobile, and brought a search canine to try to locate the handgun that was used. The canine smelled in the automobile, then went out and located the handgun a few hundred yards away from the vehicle. This handgun also matched the bullets fired at the first described location.
Issues – Hartzell challenged the search of his car as inappropriate and that prior incidents were wrongly admitted to illustrate that the defendants had a predisposition to carry out gun crimes.
Examination – First, concerning the search question. The Washington State constitution protects citizens from unwarranted searches of their individual and their private things. This provision is not dishonored if no search happens. A search occurs when the state interferes with a individual’s private affairs. Usually, a search does not transpire if an police officer is able to notice something utilizing one of his senses from a non-invasive point of view.
With regard to dog sniffs, a search occurs depending on the situation. Previous decisions have held that a search does not happen if the sniff occurs in a area the individual would not have a logical expectation of privacy and the sniff was not intrusive. Here, the dog sniffed the air coming out of the SUV window. Hartzell wasn’t in the vehicle when the sniff occurred and the dog didn’t get into the sports car. The search was reasonable.
Second, on the topic of the 404(b) verification topic. ER 404(b) provides:
proof of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a individual in order to illustrate action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
The analysis for admitting proof under this rule is well recognized. The trial court must: (1) find by a preponderance of the evidence that a crime occurred; (2) distinguish the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be introduced; (3) conclude whether the facts is related to determine the element of a offense charged; and (4) balance the probative value against the prejudicial effect.
In this situation, there was a logical deduction that the firearm located 100 yards from Hartzell’s sedan was owned by him, particularly since the canine found the gun after sniffing Hartzell’s sports car. Ammunition from the revolver was also located on Hartzell and in the sedan driven by Hartzell. Next, the prosecutor was attempting to use that verification not to demonstrate that the crimes created an identity that may perhaps illustrate the first offense and the crime alleged were the same, but that it was probable the defendants committed the crimes because they were found in possession of the guns used in the offense shortly thereafter. Because of these facts, the court located that proof to be relevant. And lastly, the trial court’s scrutiny of the admission of the evidence was sensible since it reasoned the lack of information about the incident would preclude the entrance of the information from being prejudicial.
Seattle criminal lawyer’s examination – This isn’t the most excellent case I’ve ever seen as a Seattle criminal attorney, but the prosecutor was well inside their boundaries to try to get this in. Do I think the fact that these guys are found with the guns later on have any impact on what happened under the crimes alleged? No. Because no one witnessed anything it is out of the question to see who was using those guns on the night in question. The prosecutors once again are drawing inference upon conclusion to arrive at their preferred conclusion – that these two guys committed the crimes. What I didn’t see in any of this breakdown (and granted, all of the proof wasn’t here) was any evidence that they committed the crimes alleged. As a criminal attorney in Seattle, I can definitely see why this state of affairs was taken to trial – the facts just isn’t there.
Next we have State v. Bliss, a situation regarding possession of meth, search and seizure, and automobile stops.
State v. Bliss is a state of affairs about a traffic stop that resulted in the search of the car and the unearthing of methamphetamine. It brings up a hot theme these days, the search occasion to arrest and Gant v. Arizona. Let’s read on and see what happens.
Facts – Bliss was driving around one night when a officer got behind her and checked the registration on her car. The police officer located that Bliss had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He stopped the van, established Bliss’s identity, and arrested her on the warrants. Upon arresting her, he searched the automobile, finding a tan handbag that contained a meth pipe and two small baggies of methamphetamine. The officer completed a property record prior to having the van towed.
Bliss’s Seattle criminal defense lawyer moved to suppress the verification on two grounds: (1) the cop didn’t have good reason to stop the car; and (2) the officer couldn’t have seen who was driving the motor vehicle when Bliss drove by him. The trial court discovered the officer was justified in the stop and the search was legal.
Very soon before trial Bliss renewed her motion to suppress based on the premise that the search was not incident to the arrest. The court discovered the search was simultaneous with the arrest.
Issues – Was the search legal?
scrutiny – Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the United States and Washington Constitutions. To survive scrutiny the warrantless search must fall into one of several enumerated exceptions. One exception, the one at issue here, is when an cop stops a individual briefly to investigate a logical suspicion that drunk driving activity is afoot. Under this exception, the cop must have a realistic suspicion that crime is afoot. The practical suspicion must be based on specific facts connected to the specific person stopped such that the stop and investigation is practical under the circumstances. It must be based on more than a “feeling” or a “hunch.” In determining reasonableness, the courts look to the totality of the circumstances.
In this state of affairs when the officer stopped Bliss, he knew the owner had outstanding misdemeanor and felony warrants. He also knew the person driving the van at least partially matched the description of the registered owner. This is enough information to justify the stop of Bliss.
As for the Gant analysis, further information is needed. This ruling was not yet in effect at the time of the initial motions and so was neither considered by the court nor addressed by the prosecution by way of providing an alternative justification for the search of the van. This topic is sent back down to the trial court to analyze the issue under Gant.
drunk driving attorney in Seattle analysis – This was probably the right thing to do here. If the question wasn’t known at the time of the initial hearing then there is no way the Appeals court may possibly have the information it needs to conclude if the search was legal. One thing I did uncover interesting in this opinion was the fact that later on the sedan was impounded, which suggests the sedan would have been searched to inventory the automobile. Whether that includes a search of the within of the bag remains to be seen.
Gant has actually given a tool for criminal defense lawyer’s to use on a regular basis, particularly since cops don’t yet fully grasp what it means or how to deal with it. In the end what I think it means is that there will be a lot more vehicles impounded and a lot more other excuses for searching vehicles than a search incident to arrest. I guess we’ll see…
Related Posts:
6 comments